Subject: Attendance at Minneapolis IETF

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:22:57 -0500

What sort of noise are you folks hearing from your working groups  
about attendance? I've heard unsubstantiated rumor of a number of key  
contributors not being able to attend due to funding issues. Being  
self-funded, I'm having some worries on that subject myself. $635 for  
a meeting fee is a lot of money . . .

--
Dean

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:29:40 -0400

I know a number of our key contributors didn't make Dublin, and I've
spoken with some who indicated they might not make Minneapolis (some
of the same folks, but some who made Dublin mentioned they may not
make Minn). Some of these were from self funded folks like yourself,
but I have also heard of a good bit of corporate belt tightening, and
that standards meetings looked like they might be on the chopping
block.

We'll see what happens, I guess...hopefully folks are able to attend!

David

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Dean Willis <[email-masked]> wrote:
> What sort of noise are you folks hearing from your working groups about
> attendance? I've heard unsubstantiated rumor of a number of key contributors
> not being able to attend due to funding issues. Being self-funded, I'm
> having some worries on that subject myself. $635 for a meeting fee is a lot
> of money . . .
>
> --
> Dean
>
>

-- 
David A. Bryan
[email-masked]
www.SIPeerior.com

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:51:28 +0200

This makes the remote attendance more and more important.
We need definitely an audio streaming with sufficient quality 
and volunteers who serve the jabber interface.

Cheers, 
Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext David A. Bryan
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:30 AM
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: Working Group Chairs
> Subject: Re: Attendance at Minneapolis IETF
>

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:38:14 -0400

> and volunteers who serve the jabber interface.

Shouldn't we be investigating & evaluating content sharing  
technologies like

Marratech,  www.marratechfree.com
DimDIm, http://www.dimdim.com/  (supposedly open source)
Webex http://www.webex.com/
Umeeting http://www.umeeting.com/   ?

With modern tech, people could look at the slides as they are being  
presented as well as
listen and IM, and even video is supported by some of these programs.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:32:42 +0200

I hope that the people who are joining remotely voluntarily donate their
airfare otherwise saved to the cause. 

Remember that any costs of this over and above the volunteer effort and
sponsor input are paid by people actually at the meeting.

And the fewer people at the meeting, the more each of us attending pay
towards the continued running of the IETF.

Regards

Keith

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ersue, Mehmet 
> (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 9:51 AM
> To: ext David A. Bryan; Dean Willis
> Cc: Working Group Chairs
> Subject: RE: Attendance at Minneapolis IETF
> 
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:55:17 -0400

> towards the continued running of the IETF.

True.  On the other hand, since people attending remotely don't
"count" as participants, it seems a little unfair that they should
have to pay for the privilege.  If we moved to address that at the
same time, perhaps people would be willing to pay something for remote
participation.  I have heard people make that claim in the past, but I
don't know how real the offers were.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:59:04 -0400

On Oct 16, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> "count" as participants,

In what way is that true given that all decisions have to be confirmed  
on the list ?

Regards
Marshall

> it seems a little unfair that they should

---

From: "Mike McBride (mmcbride)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:01:15 -0700

Remote attendees pay the conference fee. They save on
flight/hotel/food/time. And ietf bank is happy.

mike 

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:55 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> > I hope that the people who are joining remotely voluntarily donate 
> > their airfare otherwise saved to the cause.
> > 
> > Remember that any costs of this over and above the volunteer effort 
> > and sponsor input are paid by people actually at the meeting.
> > 
> True.  On the other hand, since people attending remotely 
> don't "count" as participants, it seems a little unfair that 
> they should have to pay for the privilege.  If we moved to 
> address that at the same time, perhaps people would be 
> willing to pay something for remote participation.  I have 
> heard people make that claim in the past, but I don't know 
> how real the offers were.
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [email-masked]
> +1 503 667 4564 x104

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:04:50 -0400

On Oct 16, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Mike McBride (mmcbride) wrote:

> Remote attendees pay the conference fee.

Is this a proposal ? They do not so far. There isn't even a tip jar.

Marshall

> They save on

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:11:39 +0200

If there is good quality audio stream and full text jabber scribe
as in some conferences I assume remote attendees would 
accept a smaller fee. I don't think they would pay if it's $635,-.

There is one point we shouldn't forget. $635,- is a lot of money 
for self-paying attendees.

Cheers, 
Mehmet

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Mike 
> McBride (mmcbride)
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 6:01 PM
> To: Andrew Sullivan; [email-masked]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:13:52 -0400

> In what way is that true given that all decisions have to be confirmed

Boy, that's a myth that I'd like to see buried like
the decomposing corpse it is (along with "running
code" and "rough consensus").  Okay, maybe they "have
to be" but that's rather different from "are."

Anyway, clearly there are costs associated with
remote attendance.  I've been primarily participating
remotely for the past few years and while when it's
good it's very, very good, rather often it's just
not very good because of inattention on the part of
the chairs.  I certainly have no problem with kicking
a few bucks towards covering the costs associated with
audio streaming, Jabber servers, etc. but with the
charge would come an increased expectation of the
ability to actually, you know, participate.

For whatever it's worth I don't care much that I
don't "count" as a participant when I'm remote.  Aside
from things like missing side chats and hallway
meetings and all the informal stuff that really does
drive a lot of the process, the only thing I could
think of that has a practical effect is that if you're
not physically present most of the time you can't
serve on NomCom.  

Melinda

---

From: "Mike McBride (mmcbride)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:14:18 -0700

> Is this a proposal ? They do not so far. There isn't even a tip jar.

Yes a proposal. A humble idea for our consideration. Fee would be for
real webex type access into the meeting. Not just jabber.
mike
 
> >> same time, perhaps people would be willing to pay something for 
> >> remote participation.  I have heard people make that claim in the 
> >> past, but I don't know how real the offers were.
> >>
> >> A
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew Sullivan
> >> [email-masked]
> >> +1 503 667 4564 x104

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:11:06 -0500

Keith,

I would love to hear how receptive your finance folks are to this
proposal given there's no process in IETF to issue receipts for such
"donations".  Right now, there's no requirement for remote participants
to register and I feel that's the right thing to do given the openness
and lack of membership required for IETF. If we want to follow the
approach you suggest, then I would propose we go to a model whereby
remote folks do have to register and pay a token fee. However, I still
believe that requiring this goes against the open nature of IETF. 

Personally, I would love to know how the fees breakout in terms of
paying for meeting space, AMS staff versus refreshments. Then, perhaps
those of us that can't partake of the refreshments can also pay a
different price and if folks realized how much these catering folks
charge for cookies, they might decide they'd bring their own ;)
Also, shouldn't we charge per specific meetings that one attends and
also the cost of RFCs. Thus, we RAI folks who have the most WGs, the
largest number of docs should likely be paying more.  I guess you can
see where I'm going here :)  I think the current model is okay OR IETF
needs to go to a membership model. 

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:33 AM
To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); ext David A. Bryan; Dean Willis
Cc: Working Group Chairs
Subject: RE: Attendance at Minneapolis IETF

Regards

Keith

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - 
> DE/Munich)
> We need definitely an audio streaming with sufficient quality and 
> volunteers who serve the jabber interface.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mehmet
>  
>

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:32:32 +0300

Hi everybody,

To answer Mary's question I think Ray could give the exact breakout of an
example meeting (this does vary a bit from meeting to meeting) to give an
understanding of the figures in question.

However, the important thing we have to remember is that practically we have
two sources of revenue for the IETF that really count to the budget - the
meeting fees, and the ISOC contribution (RFC Editor and recently also other
stuff). The other revenue sources are mostly related to the hosting of the
meeting, i.e. The meeting hosts pay for the network and depending on the
location the meeting space.

So, less meeting participants, less money to run the whole IETF - in the
meetings and between the meetings. So, with the current model, sadly, the
way how the thing goes is, as participation goes down, we have to ask for
more money from the remaining ones. It is difficult to change this without
changing the whole model of the IETF.

On cost saving side, to my understanding the cookies, etc. is a difficult
discussion. It seems that some people feel the cookies are very important
for the success of the meeting, and have to be provided to make the meeting
successful. Some people have other opinions. I have also understood that
sometimes the cookies actually pay for the meeting rooms. So, basically you
don't have to pay for the meeting rooms if you have catering.

All that said, I think it is in the spirit of the IETF to have good enough
remote participation mechanisms. That's why we are providing the tools that
we do at the moment. Even if the "good tools" might affect our "bottom
line"... ;) We just have to find the right balance in keeping the meetings
interesting and useful, and allowing good enough participation remotely to
assure that money is not the factor cutting people out of the IETF work.

Cheers,

Jonne.

PS. Sorry for the long mail.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:36:13 -0400

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:59:04AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> In what way is that true given that all decisions have to be confirmed on 
> the list ?

If you don't physically show up at meetings, you are not NomCom
eligible.  ISTR having seen NomCom sometimes used as a criterion for
other things, too, but I don't have an immediate example to hand.

Given that the NomCom is the foundation of governance of the IETF, it
seems to me that those who are excluded from the governance ought not
to be dinged for the operation.  I don't know the origins of the
eligibility rules, but I can certainly construct an argument that
relies on participants' eligibility coming from their willingness to
support (at least in part) the operation of the meetings. 

A

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:59:33 +0200

As to "donations", I assume that the normal route to this is through the
internet society and either through membership or donations, as it is
now. See:

http://www.isoc.org/members/

As many organisations seem to be able to manage this transaction I
assume that they do give some acknowledgement for the expense forms.

> > volunteers who serve the jabber interface.

We do have problems with the audio regularly, and I suspect that the
only real solution to this is to individually monitor each stream (and
even that does not compensate if the input to the microphones is rubbish
in the first place). Unless we really have volunteers who are prepared
to do this level (i.e. something like 6/8 parallel monitors) then we
will have to pay for this service, and that money needs to come from
somewhere.

And finally I was not proposing to formalise any external meeting
attendance fees, but I do believe that external participants should
recognise their impact on the costs of running the IETF, and volunteer
to contribute accordingly to their share of running it. If I recall
something like 30% - 50% of meeting fees (depending on how you work out
the sums) goes to running the IETF rather than supporting the meeting.
You can see the overall Dublin figures here (fraid there is no price on
the cookies):

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/slides/plenaryt-5/sld1.htm

And page through to slide 4.

This if someone participates remotely, that equates to a minimum of $200
they have not contributed to running the IETF via this route. Now many
may contribute by other routes.

Regards

Keith

> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 5:11 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); 
> ext David A. Bryan; Dean Willis
> Cc: Working Group Chairs
> I would love to hear how receptive your finance folks are to 
> this proposal given there's no process in IETF to issue 
> receipts for such "donations".  Right now, there's no 
> requirement for remote participants to register and I feel 
> that's the right thing to do given the openness and lack of 
> membership required for IETF. If we want to follow the 
> approach you suggest, then I would propose we go to a model 
> whereby remote folks do have to register and pay a token fee. 
> However, I still believe that requiring this goes against the 
> open nature of IETF. 
> 
> Personally, I would love to know how the fees breakout in 
> terms of paying for meeting space, AMS staff versus 
> refreshments. Then, perhaps those of us that can't partake of 
> the refreshments can also pay a different price and if folks 
> realized how much these catering folks charge for cookies, 
> they might decide they'd bring their own ;) Also, shouldn't 
> we charge per specific meetings that one attends and also the 
> cost of RFCs. Thus, we RAI folks who have the most WGs, the 
> largest number of docs should likely be paying more.  I guess 
> you can see where I'm going here :)  I think the current 
> model is okay OR IETF needs to go to a membership model. 
> 
> Regards,
> Mary. 
> 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> I hope that the people who are joining remotely voluntarily 
> donate their airfare otherwise saved to the cause. 
> 
> Remember that any costs of this over and above the volunteer 
> effort and sponsor input are paid by people actually at the meeting.
> 
> And the fewer people at the meeting, the more each of us 
> attending pay towards the continued running of the IETF.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Keith
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:02:34 +0300

Mary,

> Right now, there's no requirement for remote participants
> and lack of membership required for IETF.

Just as a datapoint, in the v4v6coexist interim that we had two weeks 
ago we did require registration of both on-site and remote participants. 
There was no meeting fee for either one, though. Nor was the 
registration enforced before you could actually join the webex stream. 
However, the list allowed us to know who will be listening to the 
meeting remotely, e.g., know if we were missing key participants. And of 
course registration means that you'll know whether real-time jabber 
scribing will be needed. While the actual meeting was going on it was of 
course possible to look at the jabber and see who is really being 
active. However, I didn't recognize all jabber IDs. And it might be 
useful for record keeping to know who was in the meeting.

So there might be some advantages to registering the remote participants 
as well. Charging a fee would be another discussion, however.

Jari

P.S. I have personally not heard key participants missing the meeting 
this time, but maybe its just because I have not heard about it. I'd say 
though that if there's an attendance problem its more likely to begin 
with non-key participants who have less of a reason to justify the trip 
cost if they are, e.g., not authors or editors. And relevance/urgency of 
the standards we work on matters, too. If we work on relevant stuff, 
companies building products are interested in participation. If the key 
participants stop coming, we need to ask some hard questions about why 
we are doing that particular work. I hear the SUBPRIME WG is in deep 
trouble :-)

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:11:02 -0400

Let me offer a somewhat politically incorrect opinion. As far as  
participation, we're looking for quality rather than quantity. The  
small meeting fee does somewhat limit participation but perhaps it  
should be limited to serious participants. Furthermore, the IETF has  
an overhead cost and that cost should be amortized over all the  
participants. I think if remote participation is perfected, those  
using it should pay at least as much as those who attend in person.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:19:11 +0200

> http://www.isoc.org/members/

+1
 
Mehmet

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:23:01 -0500

> accept a smaller fee. I don't think they would pay if it's $635,-.

I'm having a hard time justifying $635 for attending in-person. Note  
that I haven't registered yet for this one . . .

--
Dean

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:05:53 -0400

Yes, fewer participants = less revenue.

We seem to be forgetting that fewer participants = less cost, too.  
Smaller hotels, smaller venues, smaller cookie budgets all add to  
lower prices.

On Oct 16, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote:

>> and

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:06:48 -0400

Is not being nomcom-eligible a drawback or another benefit of remote  
participation :-)

On Oct 16, 2008, at 12:13 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> [snip]

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:15:17 -0700

You seem to be forgetting the fact that we fund the secretariat from the surplus generated by the F2F meetings.
 
It is a basic bug in the business model, but not one that has an easy fix unless you want to have a formal membership structure.

One possibility: Companies pay $10K a year in membership fees in return for the right to have the affiliations listed on RFCs. At the moment affiliations are listed for free.
 
Can have a lower rate for academic institutions, but not zero. they have budgets for vanity publishing in refereed journals, etc.
 
Anyone can still be listed as an individual contributor. 

It would not solve the cost issue all by itself, but there must be at least 50 companies that woud pay up and $500K is a decent chunk of change.
 
Another option would be to put advertising on the IETF site. Getting the cash to sponsor an IETF is much harder for me than getting the cash to sponsor the security area web pages.

I know folk do not like advertising. But lets think through all the options here.
 
Yet another option would be to have sponsors for the remote attendance.

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Eric Burger
Sent: Fri 10/17/2008 12:05 PM
To: Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)
Cc: Working Group Chairs
Subject: Re: Attendance at Minneapolis IETF

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:21:10 -0400

> Smaller hotels, smaller venues, smaller cookie budgets all add to  

Revenue is linear in the number of participants whereas there are a  
number of fixed costs, and, even if costs
were strictly linear with attendance, so too would be the profit.  
Since those profits support the publishing of RFCs,

Fewer participants == less money to support RFCs

Regards
Marshall

>>> effort and
>>>> (NSN -

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:28:49 +0200

Any organisation that is an Internet Society Platinum member, Gold member, Silver member or Executive member is already paying that $10K or more.
 
That is 56 organisations - less a few non-profit organisations in the Executive level.
 
And from the Philadephia meeting (#71) alone the IETF transferred $426.5K to meeting the cost of the secretariat.
 
regards
 
Keith

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
	Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 5:15 PM
	To: Eric Burger; Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)
	Cc: Working Group Chairs
	Subject: RE: Attendance at Minneapolis IETF

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:29:13 -0400

I do know how the IETF is funded. I put my money where my mouth is  
(tasty!): http://www.isoc.org/members/supporters.shtml
"the surplus", if the costs are lower, is still a surplus...

Humorously (coming from the RAI area), we fund the IETF using the  
legacy telephone network model, that of long distance subsidizing  
local. We charge "admission" for the privilege of attending a fun  
meeting three times a year. You do get some value: interesting hallway  
conversations, good beer (usually - thanks Henrik!), and the  
"opportunity" to serve on nomcom. Other than that, thanks for the  
admission fee! Since we have a surplus, and we get money from ISOC,  
that lets us have a model of:
   "participation is free, free to publish, publications are free"

The question is, do we want to change our "free" (subsidized) model to  
one of:

   "pay to participate, free to publish, pay for publications" (old  
ITU model)

   "(relatively) free to participate, free to publish, pay for  
publications" (IEEE model)

   "free to participate, free to publish, pay for  
publications" (legacy academic model)

   "free to participate, pay to publish, publications are free" (new  
academic model)

On Oct 17, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> You seem to be forgetting the fact that we fund the secretariat from  
> the surplus generated by the F2F meetings.
>
> It is a basic bug in the business model, but not one that has an  
> easy fix unless you want to have a formal membership structure.
>
>
> One possibility: Companies pay $10K a year in membership fees in  
> return for the right to have the affiliations listed on RFCs. At the  
> moment affiliations are listed for free.
>
> Can have a lower rate for academic institutions, but not zero. they  
> have budgets for vanity publishing in refereed journals, etc.
>
> It would not solve the cost issue all by itself, but there must be  
> at least 50 companies that woud pay up and $500K is a decent chunk  
> of change.
>
> Another option would be to put advertising on the IETF site. Getting  
> the cash to sponsor an IETF is much harder for me than getting the  
> cash to sponsor the security area web pages.
>
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:28:26 -0700

On Oct 17, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
> (tasty!): http://www.isoc.org/members/supporters.shtml. "the  
> surplus", if the costs are lower, is still a surplus...

Surplus?

For those who would like to understand the funding of the IETF, you  
can look at http://www.isoc.org/isoc/SOP-Part2.pdf (2006 projections)  
and http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2008_Budget_Final.pdf (current  
working budget with projections for 2009-2010). We have annualized  
meeting revenues on the order of three million dollars, and annualized  
expenses on the order of 4.5 million dollars. The difference is not  
met with PIR money; the contract with ICANN specifically excludes  
that, and ISOC uses it for a variety of public policy and educational  
projects. ISOC funds the IETF's deficit from corporate  
("organizational") memberships such as Eric's.

Let me put a bald plug in here for organizational membership. If there  
are greater contributions of that type, the meeting fee can be  
reduced. Platinum memberships ($100K/yr) allow the member to specify  
how the money is used; lower levels of membership simply go into the  
general fund and subsidize all ISOC activities including the IETF.

Think about it.

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:52:37 -0700

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 2:38 AM
> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Cc: Working Group Chairs

We used WebEx for the IPv6/IPv4 Interim meeting in Montreal,
which I co-chaired.  I think it was generally viewed as successful.  
WebEx shared slides, delivered audio and video, and I think we also
had it set up to allow dialin from the PSTN.  All IM was, to my
knowledge, still done using Jabber.  WebEx worked for both Mac
and Windows viewers.

Gunter Van de Velde ([email-masked]) controlled the audio
and video from his PC (for audio and video), and one of the chairs 
(me) had to login to WebEx to share the slides that were being 
projected.  

-d

> presented as well as listen and IM, and even video is supported 
> by some of these programs.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall
> 
> 
> > Cheers,
> > Mehmet
> >
> >

---

From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:41:44 +0200

Fwiw the recordings of the IPv6/IPv4 Interim meeting in Montreal 
are available throught he interim meeting wiki.
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/int/trac/wiki/v4v6interim)

All worked rather well. The audio was from time-to-time 
oversaturated depending on the loudness of the actual presentor 
and the location of its micro. During the live streaming in addition to
the above 
video from the room was sent by means of a small webcam (This video
stream was not recorded).

Brgds,
G/

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Wing (dwing) 
Sent: zaterdag 18 oktober 2008 1:53
To: 'Marshall Eubanks'; 'Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)'
Cc: 'Working Group Chairs'; Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
Subject: RE: Attendance at Minneapolis IETF

> DimDIm, http://www.dimdim.com/  (supposedly open source) Webex 
> http://www.webex.com/

We used WebEx for the IPv6/IPv4 Interim meeting in Montreal, which I
co-chaired.  I think it was generally viewed as successful.  
WebEx shared slides, delivered audio and video, and I think we also had
it set up to allow dialin from the PSTN.  All IM was, to my knowledge,
still done using Jabber.  WebEx worked for both Mac and Windows viewers.

Gunter Van de Velde ([email-masked]) controlled the audio and video
from his PC (for audio and video), and one of the chairs
(me) had to login to WebEx to share the slides that were being
projected.  

-d

> presented as well as listen and IM, and even video is supported by 
> some of these programs.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall
> 
> 
> > Cheers,
> > Mehmet
> >
> >

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:33:17 -0700

Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Shouldn't we be investigating & evaluating content sharing technologies
> like
> 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jaeggli-ietf-streaming-media-status-00